lII
SPEECH AT THE
MADRID ATENEO.
Which of the two forms of
government best realizes the ideal of Right-a
monarchy or a republic?
Mr. Moreno Nieto,
President: - Mr. Hostos has the floor. Mr. Hostos:
- Gentlemen: I
don't have to tell you who I am. I am an American;
I have the honor of
being a Puerto Rican and a federalist. Being a colonial, a
product of colonial despotism, and hindered by it in my feelings,
thoughts and actions, I took vengeance upon it by imagining a
definitive form of liberty and I conceived a confederation of
ideas, given the impossibility of a political confederation. I am
a federalist because I am American, because I am a colonial -
because I am Puerto Rican. From my island I view Santo Domingo,
Cuba and Jamaica, and I think of the Confederation; I look toward
the north and feel the Confederation; I look across the
semi-circle of islands which geographically link and "federate"
Puerto Rico with Latin America, and I prophesy a providential
Confederation.
However, since
resolutions made with the emotions are not sufficiently rational,
I have felt the need to reason them out, and feel the need to do
so before you now.
Therefore I will make
use of the theme which has been submitted to your discussion. The
fIrst part of the topic states: Which of the two forms of
government best realizes the ideal of Right, a monarchy or a
republic?
I will examine as
quickly as possible, as rapidly as my slow manner of expressing my
thoughts allows, the four principal concepts in the question:
form, realization of the ideal by the form, ideal,and Right.
Is form the
realization of an ideal? To realize an ideal is to give it
objective life, and every form, by the mere act of realization,
gives objective life to its essence and its ideal, and every form
of government will realize, its ideal of Right; in which case the
discussion becomes pointless, as every form will express its
perfect ideal.
.
Speech and redress given
during a session at the Ateneo in Madrid on the night of
Saturday, December 20th,
1868.
199
But if the form doesn't realize, does it externalize? If it
does, it will be externalizing something internal, essential in
se, in which case the form will be nothing but the development
of the essence, and even if there are twists in the development, the
form will always be an expression of the ideal; they will be
inseparable, and where there is a form, there will be an
externalization of the ideal. Thus as they remain inseparable, the
ideal in every form will be immaterial.
This is false, if for no other reason than because it is a
condemnation of freedom and a denial of Right, and as a denial of
Right it is also a dissipation of the ideal, an exaltation of
arbitrariness, a consecration of misfortune.
The truth is that the form is conditional to the essence; that
every essence has its own form, every ideal is attached to its own
reality, and there is no realization or externalization, just a
distortion of the ideal; that is, there are arbitrary means which
are more or less artistic, more or less in agreement with the form
and the essence of every ideal expressed.
Thus the ideal is everything-basis and form, reality and idea-which
as an infallible norm of justice, truth and beauty, drives the
actions, thoughts and emotions of humanity. Thus form and essence
are an irreducible unit, and inasmuch as there is an absolute
ideal, there is an absolute form which corresponds to it eternally.
This is proven by the definition of Right-incidentally, I caution
that this definition, like all the thought behind this speech, is
solely my own, since I follow no school whatsoever. Right is the
expression of the innate and necessary faculty by means of which we
reach the moral goals of our existence.
The ideal of Right is justice. Since there is but one ideal, one
justice, there is but one form, one Right, because I know of none
other than the one which is forever dependent on unalterable
justice.
Applying these principles to forms of government, we can say that
the form which will better agree with the ideal of Right will be the
one which better concurs with that ideal, with justice. Moreover,
since the form itself is either an element or a necessary part of
the ideal or it is nothing, -Only one of them is the absolute,
necessary and true form.
Which of the two will it be? According to Vico, the revolutionary of
historical science, and according to my dear friend Mr. Rayon, it is
the monarchy; according to reason and to myself, it is the republic.
Let us examine the two forms:
Monarchy is government by one, which is the first injustice; it is
the monopolization of all individual and social rights by an
indisputable sovereignty, the second injustice; it is the denial of
all inherent liberties by
200
an artificial authority, the third
injustice; it is the establishment of irrevocable power with no
liability, the fourth injustice-all of which makes the great right
to insurrection necessary. Does this form of government
realize justice?
The following conditions are in opposition to the four main
injustices of a monarchy: absolute individual freedom, municipal
independence, provincial independence, the omnipotence of national
representation, the liability of all powers, and the totally free
alliance of all national parties, which is what constitutes a
federation. I have mentioned monarchy and federation (absolute
republic) because all historical degenerations of both, all the
intermediate forms, are either rejections of the absolute monarchy
or points of agreement with the federal republic. I have not spoken
about the unitary republic, because no republic exists in which
there is concentration of power; and I will not speak about
historical forms of the monarchy, because-besides my being tired of
making you tired-there is already a formula which historically
expresses the need for an absolute form of government: the more
absolute a monarchy, the more it is rejected as a form of
government, because it is further from justice; and the more
absolute a republic is, the more it concurs with justice, the ideal
of Right.
Now that the first part of the topic
has been addressed, gentlemen, I shall express a reservation: I do
not want to apply my principles to Spain, because I am an enemy of
the political pathology which makes a doctor out of everyone who
deals with the present condition of a nation and applies remedies to
an illness which is always easier to diagnose
than cure.
Gentlemen, I don't know
if it is because of the isolation experienced by Spain, which, like
a person restrained by a force of destiny has withdrawn and isolated
herself from other nations; I don't know if because of this
isolation Spain is too neglectful of the international movement of
ideas. I do know that she is too withdrawn. If Spain, and all of you
as well, opened your eyes to the broad horizon Europe offers, you
would see how strongly the ideal of confederation, although in a
latent state, present itself.
I would like to spare
you the weariness' also share, so I will only go on to prove,
through the important events currently taking place or being
predicted, that everything is happening because of the peoples' hope
for a political unity equal to the intellectual confederation
already existent.
Europe is
currently plagued by three problems: the trouble in the East, the
German problem and the Italian problem. One of two things occurs in
each case: unavoidable activity toward federation or reaction
201
against absorbing unions. That is, where there is traditional unity,
there is a tendency toward federation; where unity is recent, there
is intolerable discomfort as a result of not having adopted the
federal principle.
The problem in the East has produced a noteworthy phenomenon. While
the powers interested in solving the problem complicate it the more
they try to simplify it, the peoples who are demanding a place in
history and expecting it to be part of the solution are offering the
key to the enigma. The Slavic race is preparing for an active life
of progress by obeying the idea of alliance or federation among all
its members; and while diplomatic activity is concentrated on the
Ottoman Empire, PanSlavisrn secretly triumphs in the principalities
and disturbs the unifying project of the Hapsburg empire in Bohemia
and Hungary.
The Hellenic race is struggling to completely free itself from
Turkey with increasing success; its members gather around a
liberated Greece.
The triumph of federalism is evident in the German question. In
spite of the life interest that southern Germany has in uniting with
northern Germany, it resists its own interests in order to avoid
subjection to Prussian hegemony, and has thus expressed its federal
aims, saying it wants unity in liberty, that is, unity in the free
association of the different members of its nationality.
Italy's malaise, its impotence even in resolving the increasingly
difficult Roman question, is proof of the reaction against false
unities.
The same thing that has occurred within these territorial
revolutions is basically happening in this "fourth state" whose
advent is being announced by the growing progress of political
ideas and the visible disagreement between the established powers
and the people.
In spite of the passive middle class which hides when it should come
forth, flees when it should fight, and has abolished freedom
everywhere with its fear, the "fourth state" is claiming its place
in historical and political life.
Economic development, the problems it has sought to solve, and its
condemnation of a formerly scorned strength which it has now obliged
upper classes and governments to recognize, is proof, gentlemen,
that one of those events which transform the lives of nations is
going to take place in Europe. And, as if the latent strength wanted
to determine its dominant character even before exploding, the
"fourth state"-restricted as well as disdained-associates, links and
strengthens itself in alliances that will one day make it
incompatible, and the international alliances and associations of
the working class begin to develop.
What does all of this mean? That the absolute form is winning,
that all of Europe is headed toward federation.
As I said, gentlemen, I have not wanted to apply the
principles I de
202
fend to the Spanish peninsula; but I must seriously address
patriotism and call your attention to a type of Spanish federation
that will help Spain safeguard two extremely important members of
its present nationality.
Gentlemen: this is a crucial moment for the Spanish colonies.
Victims of a tradition of despotism, they have been deceived a
thousand times-I repeat, deceived, gentlemen! They cannot and should
not continue to be subjected to an absurd union that has prevented
them from becoming what they should be and which forbids them to
live.
Spain has not carried out its rightful purposes in the Americas, and
one by one the continental colonies have freed themselves from its
yoke. History will not blame the colonies.
If Spain wants to be worthy of history; if she wants to preserve the
remnants of the great family acquired through the Conquest and lost
through tyranny, then she should think deeply about her duty and
make amends for the injustices committed; Spain should become less
greedy about freedom; she should extend the freedom just conquered
at home and the one she has promised, the one which cannot be denied
without indignity to the peoples always obedient to her call, always
ready to help, the ones who have helped Spain with their wealth
everyone of the thousand times it has been necessary; Spain should
call back with open arms those who are fleeing because of her
behavior, saying with self-confidence:
"Generous' people of Puerto Rico and Cuba, forgive the torments I
have imposed on you for three centuries. In the name of God and in
accordance with reason and justice, all of whom reject slavery for
both individuals and nations, let us unite with the bonds of
liberty-be free within yourselves! Let us join together in our
common love and for our mutual comfort; let us live as brothers,
independently living our own lives but depending on each other in
times of need, difficulties and common afflictions.
The bond of liberty that can still unite the Antilles and Spain is
the federal bond; the way to realize independence. within dependence
is through federation.
I
have said enough.
(Mr. Aguilera asks
for the floor and in the name of patriotism attacks Mr. Hostos'
speech, accuses him of being anti-Spanish, cites the Overseas
Provinces' summons to the Cortes in 1812, and criticizes the
Antilles for being ungrateful.)
Mr. Hostos:
- Since I do justice to
Mr. Aguilera's patriotism, His Excellence
203
should also note my own firm and resolute patriotism-I respect in
others what I encourage in myself. But since I have not attacked
Spain, but rather told the truth; since I have not dealt with a
question of patriotism, Mr. Aguilera, but rather with a problem of
justice; since I have not wasted my time repeating what history
already knows, but rather used it to give a redeeming solution to an
increasingly dangerous problem, I firmly reiterate everything I
have said, and add that far from being ungrateful, the colonies
(not the "Overseas Provinces") have proven their love for the
metropolis and have received nothing but indifference in return.
(Mr. Aguilera insists on his evidence of the summons to the
Cortes and asks what the Antilles have done for Spain).
Mr. Hostos:
-
Earlier I praised Mr. Aguilera' patriotism, and now I commend his
cunning, but he should not thank me for this-I detest cunning too
much to respect it. While he again insists on the summons to the
Cortes in 1812 and credits it with the liberation of the continental
colonies, His Honor cleverly forgets that between 1812 and 1868,
there was 1837 and 1854. Mr. Aguilera is right, during 1812-when
liberalism first evolved in Spain-the American colonies were
summoned to the Cortes. Why? To show them that Spain feared freedom
in the colonies. Where his honor is mistaken, what is contemptible
about his explanation is the deception it echoes. His Honor assumes
the colonies were liberated because they were granted the right to
present their thoughts and needs before the National Assembly. This
is an absurdity worthy of its creators.
In
the continental colonies and in Cuba
and Puerto Rico there is a race of exploiters who in their eagerness
to exploit everything, have even become traders in human flesh.
Those "good people" perceived then, as they do now, that freedom
would have destroyed the edifice built by despotism and by their own
greed, and to avoid its destruction in the
Antilles they credited the rights of 1812 with the liberation of the
colonies. History laughs at those good people. But history
does not laugh at the despicable violation committed in 1837. Does
His Lordship know what happened in 1837? Well, in 1837-during the
second period of development of liberalism-the remaining colonies
were summoned to the Constituent Cortes. But since for unworthy
personal reasons the colonies represented an obstacle (some
liberals harbored the fears of colonial monopolists), a pretext
for getting rid of the obstacle was invented. They said to
themselves: "Let us pretend we are taking a liberal step; let US
pretend we want more freedoms for Cuba and Puerto Rico and rid
ourselves of their representatives, who could very well be like
those indomitable South Americans who in 1812 eclipsed our glory
with theirs."
204
And then, gentlemen, under the pretext that Spain's colonial
principle was changing from one of assimilation to one of expansion,
from the Spanish system to the English, they added an article to the
Constitution, and committed the injustice of throwing the Cuban and
Puerto Rican representatives out of Congress.
The year 1854 came, and with it the third period in the evolution of
liberalism in Spain. And was anything done for Cuba and Puerto Rico?
No. Nothing.
Then came 1868 and the ebullience of the liberal idea. It is a
victory for all of us because we all have contributed to the triumph
of this revolution. Perhaps the Antilleans who have taken part in
it have contributed more vigorously than some of those now reaping
its benefits. At a moment when we all expected and hoped that the
revolution would have the dignity to extend itself to Cuba and
Puerto Rico, when those of us who served liberty here in order to
serve it there, expected our sacrifices would be rewarded with such
liberty, that our bravery in speaking out when no one else did would
be rewarded and personal commitments would be honored-yes gentlemen,
personal commitments made to some of us on behalf of our homeland-at
this moment they point to Cuba, who has taken arms against the
hateful contributions which have impoverished both Cuba and Puerto
Rico and against the oppression we have defeated here, and they say
to us: "either you lay down your arms or we won't grant you
liberties", to which we answer: "either you grant us our liberties
or we won't lay down our arms".
Mr. Aguilera, asks what Spain owes the Antilles. She owes them the
monetary sacrifices which financed her war in Africa; she owes them
the money that ran the war in Santo Domingo; above all she owes them
the kindness of three centuries of patience with which they have
waited for their much needed freedom; she owes them justice, which
is what we are asking for. (Several voices exclaim, "Yes,
justice!".)
(The president, in phrases vigorously inspired by a strong feeling
of patriotism, acknowledges Mr. Hostos's own patriotism, and
discreetly asks him to declare that he has not intended to encourage
the events in
Cuba with his words.)
Mr. Hostos:
-
Mr. Moreno Nieto, whose wonderful eloquence I have admired at this
moment more than ever, asks me for a statement-I am going to please
my eloquent friend by making two statements:
First: That I do not believe that Cuba's uprising, brought about by
hunger and by the oppression of the old regime, will be maintained
in the face of freedom, in whose quick effects and peaceful
influence I trust.
Second: That if, contrary to what I expect, justice is not done, and
if
205
with the same right which has been exercised here, a fight for
freedom as deeply rooted in my country as it is in every part of
the world-were waged over there, I would not be in this room.
(The President applauds Mr. Hostos's intense patriotism, which he
says is all the more deserving of respect when it goes from words
to deeds.)
(Mr. Goicorretea, in defense of someone who is absent from the
meeting, asks Mr. Hostos what he has to say about the taxes from
Cuba and Puerto Rico.)
Mr. Hostos:
- You flatter me; and since I do not know whom the
gentleman who was kind enough to question me is alluding to, I
will say, first of all, that I do not deal with individuals; I
have said and I repeat that the contributions are a hateful
product of a contemptible combination. The last men of that
regime, who have left because they were ruining this country; the
. last men of that regime conceived of a
simple way of filling the chests
they emptied. While the wretched
islands were destroyed by hurricanes, which had not hit them in
twenty years; while their crops were torn out by the roots; while
earthquakes shook hem as never before; while they lay back
with their arms crossed and their eyes fixed on the sky and asked,
"Dear God, how much more will we have to bear!", from here they
responded by imposing on them a contribution which doubled and
tripled the tax rate.
206
|